From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a24:4754:: with SMTP id t81mr17296851itb.106.1560213157101; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6b83:: with SMTP id b3mr32161772otq.82.1560213156880; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.215.MISMATCH!s188no89882itb.0!news-out.google.com!l135ni298itc.0!nntp.google.com!g15no89451itd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:32:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.234.171; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.234.171 References: <28facad3-c55f-4ef2-8ef8-004925b7d1f1@googlegroups.com> <87woi0xtwm.fsf@nightsong.com> <4a0438de-1f1d-4469-aae4-908854d378ea@googlegroups.com> <47d02bdc-6b50-43aa-bc5d-bb5b6225f5bd@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why .ads as well as .adb? From: Optikos Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:32:37 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56608 Date: 2019-06-10T17:32:36-07:00 List-Id: On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 5:07:41 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Maciej Sobczak" wrote in message=20 > news:bab5af5d-a3d7-412d-b3c9-1e573e2dd467@googlegroups.com... > > No, you are proving that you refuse to comprehend my actual point: that > > source file organization is irrelevant (except maybe to compilers). >=20 > Then why people are defending separate spec files so hard? >=20 > >> You've > >> never once said a word about the important point: reducing coupling. >=20 > >On the contrary. I have pointed that spec and implementations are couple= d=20 > >so much >=20 > Of course they're coupled, they're views of the same thing (just like=20 > private types and full types are views of the same thing). >=20 > I was referrring to coupling *between* units. The specification of a unit= =20 > typically depends only on a small number of other units (sometimes even= =20 > none), while the implementation typically depends on many more=20 > (language-defined packages, implementation helpers, etc.). That's the=20 > coupling I'm worrying about, as it matters in a number of ways. >=20 > >> At this point, it appears that you are mainly trolling, >=20 > >Or maybe you are just running out of arguments. >=20 > Which would appear to be the same. :-) Since you belittle or ignore any= =20 > serious argument, there's really no possibility of continuing. (It's OK t= o=20 > disagree, it's not OK to ignore all or [as in the case above], twist=20 > someone's discussion point into something unrecognizable. >=20 >=20 > >What I don't accept is the religious attitude that Ada is the only langu= age > > that got the software engineering right and (consequently) that everyth= ing > >else is broken. >=20 > The truth hurts. So far as I can tell, no other language has really tried= to=20 > "get software engineering right". There was only one other programming language that tried to =E2=80=9Cget so= ftware engineering right=E2=80=9D and that achieved significant industrial = usage and an open-source GCC compiler and that was ISO standardized: CHILL= . While DoD & NATO were busy with their HOLWG effort for the military, ITU= -T (in the United Nations) launched a somewhat competing effort for telecom= in the EU (and AT&T steadfastly rejected both for the most part except for= some monitoring of the 2 other efforts, so that AT&T pushed forward with C= ). As can be seen in the following example CHILL source code, if Ada was envis= ioned as a Pascal/Wirth-esque-family language, CHILL was envisioned as a PL= /1esque-family language. As such, Ada is beautiful & refined by comparison= , whereas CHILL is rather abrupt & uncouth, as if it is most at home on an = IBM mainframe with its fellow brethren CICS and JCL and of course PL/I. CH= ILL and Ada share many of the same goals and as such have some analogous la= nguage features that are absent in most other programming languages. Excep= t for some maintenance of CHILL-based telecom equipment from Alcatel and Si= emens, CHILL has become a dead language. http://psc.informatik.uni-jena.de/languages/chill/chill.htm > It's possible, of course, but everyone=20 > either is trying to graft engineering onto some preexisting base without = it=20 > (C++, Java) or is building something that's more about fast construction= =20 > than engineering (Python). I concur. And the grafting on is not very aggressive at all. It is as if = the other languages that dip a toe into software-engineering principles are= merely paying lip service to the topic.